Crisco Disco link removed

Q: policy about adding content about emergency uses?

Is it really necessary to have a section regarding sexual uses of a shortening?

Protection

RfC on use as a personal lubricant

Should the use of Crisco as a personal lubricant be described in the article?

• Option A: Include brief mention of that use, like this revision
• Option B: Include mention along with other alternative uses, like in this revision
• Option C: Include detailed section, like in this revision
• Option D: Do not mention, like in this revision

Linking the previous RfC and discussion. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[]

more experienced editors, let me know if I made a mistake in my formatting, this is my first time starting an RfC. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Courtesy pings: @2Scoops1President @Johnuniq @Blaithnaid FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[]

@FloblinTheGoblin I can answer your question with a question: Do reliable sources mention Crisco's use as a personal lubricant? Polygnotus (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[]

https://www.nebraskamed.com/health/conditions-and-services/womens-health/you-asked-we-answered-which-personal-lubricant-is-best & https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3244680/Polygnotus (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[]

True, however other editors have brought up possibilities of this giving undue weight. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[]

@FloblinTheGoblin It may be a good idea to link to the previous RfC and preceding discussions surrounding this topic. Polygnotus (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Right, doing that now FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[]

thank you for the ping. my opinion on the matter hasn't changed - i don't feel that the inclusion of the product's sexual use is giving it undue weight, and i would disagree with cutting down the section considering it's all pretty well supported. i would be open to including it in a section of broader scope around "unofficial uses" similar to Option B, but we would need to be careful not to inflate the importance of other uses of the product, seeing as that it appears that for the majority of those who have interacted with Crisco other than for its intended use, it has been for a sexual use. Blaithnaid (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Here is another reliable source. Any mention should include the risks and not give undue weight to this aspect since use of the product for cooking is overwhelmingly the primary use. Cullen328 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[]

I first support option A. Regarding sourcing, Crisco has been wisely advertised by LGBT groups and organisations within the LGBT community for a considerable time, and there are ample reliable sources documenting this usage. In this context, the brand name is often used generically to refer to any thick, fat-based lubricant. However, then we must include the same information in the Wikipedia article about vaselin, sunflower seed oil, olive oil, coconut oil, etc. That is why I think the best is to just stick to what Crisco is and what it is made for.

I would support Option B if we have to mention it. It presents the information in a way that is both useful to readers and appropriately neutral in tone. BassiStone (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Do not mention at all, unless there's a source that says that only Crisco brand vegetable shortening will do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Crisco was particularly emblematic [1], to the point that Gayle Rubin stated that Vast quantities of Crisco were essential to the Catacombs experience. Crisco was the lube of choice. Nothing ever removed the pervasive layer of Crisco that coated every surface about Catacombs (sex club). I don't see why the fact that other vegetable shortenings have similar properties should determine whether or not it should be included. Katzrockso (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Option B or C are both acceptable, with no particular preference to either. This seems to have sufficient sourcing to warrant a WP:CFORK, in all honesty. Katzrockso (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[]

@Katzrockso Would be cool if you could list some sources about Crisco that mention this usage. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[]

@Polygnotus I did in a comment directly above this one, and there are numerous sources in versions B and C of the proposal (incidentally, after I found the Drew Sawyer source, I noticed option C cited that same source). The Rubin quote comes from her compilation work "Deviations: A Reader" (great book if you ever get the chance). Katzrockso (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Definitely worth including. I like the direction of Option B, putting it under a section titled "Other uses" or similar. Although the exact revision linked above would need some reworking... the last sentence has a rather brazen example of WP:EASTEREGG/WP:SURPRISE linking; not sure why I hovered over the word "can" anyway but oop okay, cheeks on my computer screen!!

Katzrockso brought up an excellent source I think should definetely be utilized. Time frame should be mentioned, seeing as there are MUCH better options nowadays, the fact that this was predominantly in the 1970s-early 80s in cities with booming semi-underground gay scenes gives context as to why this was such a widespread and notable thing. The current version is getting there in some respects but still needs help. It names a specific erotic film and simply links the online digitized movie itself as reference + Vice article does not support preceding statement (both WP:OR) + "fisting" should be "sex" or "anal sex" for general accuracy. elchupacabra (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[]

I didn't realize this when I first added it to my response but it's used in Option C! Katzrockso (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Oh yeah! I like that bit in Option C. Actually now that I consider them again option C looks pretty good too. elchupacabra (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Option C or Option B, but we can obviously only do B if other alternative uses are widespread and supported by reliable sources. I think that ample reliable sources have been given, and I believe this is a better place for the information than, say, Fisting, Homosexuality, or Personal lubricant. However, it might warrant a mention on some of those articles. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Option C or B, with stronger preference for C. Others above have argued well for an inclusion that isn't brief. Option C seems like a much better fit given the sources, though. Option B implies that Crisco is still as frequently used as before, but the significance of Crisco as a sexual lubricant is mainly a historical one. Nowadays, proper lube is easier to buy and Crisco is harder to come by. (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Option C or D. Option A and B read almost like a recommendation. If included this should be worded as "some people have used it for lube", not "it works great as lube." I can't imagine that any reliable sources are reporting on the effectiveness of using Crisco as lube - I don't doubt these claims, but maybe they don't belong in an encyclopedia such as this. It doesn't say, for instance, on the article about bananas "these make for a great pocket pussy..." Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[]

To be clear, we don’t necessarily need to use the wordings used in those revisions, I just put them up as examples. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Option D: Do not mention — I get the historical perspective, but this is 2026, and health concerns have now been identified with its usage as a lubricant, and with no mention of those health concerns, I can not support inclusion of the content in question.— Isaidnoway (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  Why not just... also mention the health concerns, using the source you have just identified? (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  None of these options are static choices, they are meant to be illustrative of the form it might be included in, not the precise substance @Isaidnoway Katzrockso (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  Without the "precise" wording, I can't support what I haven't seen. And I just don't think that content (in any form), really adds any value to this specific article, quite honestly. I would support a merge of that content/section to Personal lubricant, where it can be expanded on and given the DUE weight it deserves.— Isaidnoway (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Option C - (Brought here from RFC/A) I took a look at the detailed section outline and I thought it read fine and as far as being an encyclopedia, the historical usage of crisco should be included, removing it would seem like erasure. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Hey, you posted this comment out of order and it's appearing smack dab in the middle of another chain of replies. Can I move it into order for you? (she/they) T - C - Email me! 00:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• If no example had been provided, you would have seen the words:

Option A: Include brief mention of that use

Option B: Include mention along with other alternative uses

Option C: Include detailed section

Option D: Do not mention

Wikipedians !vote/discuss whether to include or exclude information or otherwise discuss things in an abstract manner every single day, so the idea that you can't support a change without a precise wording is absurd.

Katzrockso (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Option D: Do not mention — seems a digression WP:OFFTOPIC for here that more appropriately belongs only in the Personal lubricant article if there, and any salacious mention here would naturally draw WP:UNDUE attention. It is not like humans haven’t used just about *everything* slippery and/or edible, no need to specifically say so at each such product. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[]

  It is not like humans haven’t used just about *everything* slippery and/or edible, no need to specifically say so at each such product. I don't think this is quite right. We don't need to worry about having to describe the sexual use at every other such product's article, because there is only one such product that was associated so strongly with the gay liberation movement. That product is Crisco. It's only Crisco.

  Also, not everything that is slippery and edible is suitable as a sexual lubricant. It also needs to be transparent and odorless, and it needs to be sex safe (i.e. doesn't cause immediate discomfort or health problems when inserted). This is a lot to ask of a substance. (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[]

• Option B - Include in a "Other uses / Cultural impact / Non-culinary uses" section, but weigh the content and amount of detail according to the prominence of these uses in reliable sources per WP:DUE/WP:WEIGHT. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[]
• Don't censor it, but source it: The referenced option A is unsourced and therefore unacceptable. Option B seems also practically unsourced. Whatever we do should be sourced to reliable sources. I like the inclusion of a link to Crisco Disco – that should definitely be somewhere in the article. Basically, option C looks pretty good (although Drew Sawyer was just a student at the time, and his cited commentary was not a formal publication – just something presented in a seminar series that was primarily taught by someone else). It's not off topic at all. Why should we shy away from describing this use? Many of the edit summaries provided when removing such information appear to be completely unjustified by Wikipedia policies & guidelines, including WP:NOTCENSORED. Objections of "Encouraging pornography", "Inappropriate sexual nature", and "unnecessary information" seem unjustifiable. I notice that the list provided below only includes two removals in the last 5 years, both of which were very recent and were performed by unregistered users. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[]
• Option C. Don't mention it in the lead as option A does.--Fast Eddie V (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Revision Search Results